Is Elon Musk skirting election law in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race?
[March 29, 2025]
By JILL COLVIN and SCOTT BAUER
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Billionaire Elon Musk's unprecedented efforts to
bolster the conservative candidate in next week's hotly contested
Wisconsin Supreme Court race ran into legal hot water Friday amid
accusations that he had broken state election law.
Musk announced late Thursday that he planned to hold a Sunday rally in
Wisconsin, where he said he would “personally hand over” $1 million
checks to two voters who had already cast their ballots “in appreciation
for you taking the time to vote.”
Wisconsin state law expressly prohibits giving anything of value in
exchange for voting — drawing a slew of complaints, including from
Wisconsin’s Democratic attorney, who sued Friday afternoon to block Musk
from handing out the checks.
Amid the backlash, Musk deleted the post and later posted a revised
offer.
“To clarify a previous post, entrance is limited to those who have
signed the petition in opposition to activist judges. I will also hand
over checks for a million dollars to 2 people to be spokesmen for the
petition,” he wrote.
Andrew Romeo, a spokesperson for Musk’s political action committee,
declined to comment on what had prompted the change.
What was the response?
Musk's initial post drew a flurry of accusations just days before
Tuesday's election, which will determine the ideological makeup of the
highest court in the perennial presidential battleground.
Attorney General Josh Kaul on Friday asked the circuit court to issue an
emergency injunction to stop Musk from making the payments, calling them
a “blatant attempt to violate” Wisconsin's anti-bribery statute.
They also took issue with Musk’s political action committee, America
First, offering to pay $100 to any registered Wisconsin voter who signed
a petition voicing opposition to “activist judges” — or forwarded it to
someone who did. Earlier this week, the group announced that it had
awarded $1 million to a Green Bay man to serve as a “spokesperson for
signing our Petition In Opposition To Activist Judges.”
The recipient, Scott Ainsworth, has donated to Republicans and made
social media posts supporting President Donald Trump and his agenda.
A bipartisan coalition of government watchdog groups and former
officeholders, along with a liberal Madison law firm, asked the
Wisconsin attorney general and the Milwaukee County district attorney to
investigate the $1 million payment and $100 signing payments.
Wisconsin law makes it a felony to offer, give, lend or promise to lend
or give anything of value to induce a voter to cast a ballot or not
vote.
Numerous legal experts argued Friday that Musk's first post promising
payments to voters for voting appeared to be in clear violation of the
bribery statute.
“You cannot pay people to vote or not to vote,” said Richard Painter, a
law professor at the University of Minnesota and former White House
ethics chief in the Bush administration. “His running these lotteries
based on whether people vote or not, it’s illegal. And he’s got to cut
that out.”
Musk’s revised X post, Painter said, “at least purports to comply with
Wisconsin law.”
“I guess that technically complies,” he said.
Does Musk deleting his original post make a difference?
Others weren't so sure.
Bryna Godar, staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative
at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said Musk changing the terms
of his offer “puts the payments and attendance at the rally back into a
gray area under Wisconsin law.”
"The question is whether the offers are 'in order to induce' people to
vote or go to the polls, and there can be arguments made on either side
of that question,” she said in an email.
She also said it is possible that Musk violated the election bribery law
simply by offering the payments, even if no money is ever paid.
"Given that he already made the offer and that it was up while early
voting was actively underway, there is a question of whether the initial
post already violated state law, even though he has later walked it
back," she wrote. “Deleting his post and changing the terms might
mitigate the circumstances, but it does not necessarily resolve the
legal issue.”
Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Ben Wikler was more blunt.
“Let’s be very clear: Elon Musk committed a crime the moment he offered
million-dollar checks 'in appreciation for’ voting, and deleting
evidence of that crime changes nothing," he said in a statement. “Under
Wisconsin law, merely the offer of something of value — in this case,
the chance to receive one million dollars — is plainly illegal.”
[to top of second column]
|
Elon Musk attends the finals at the NCAA wrestling championship,
Saturday, March 22, 2025, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)
A challenge to Musk’s payments could end up before the Wisconsin
Supreme Court.
Has Musk tried this before?
Musk’s political action committee used nearly identical tactics to
the ones he is using in Wisconsin ahead of the presidential election
last year, when he spent hundreds of millions of dollars helping
President Donald Trump win a second term.
That included offering to pay $1 million a day to voters in
Wisconsin and six other battleground states who signed a petition
supporting the First and Second Amendments.
Philadelphia’s district attorney sued in an attempt to stop the
payments under Pennsylvania law. But a judge said prosecutors failed
to show the effort was an illegal lottery and allowed it to continue
through Election Day.
Rick Hasen, a prominent election law expert at the UCLA School of
Law, noted that the legal issues raised this week echoed concerns
about Musk’s tactics ahead of last year’s presidential election.
“During the 2024 elections, there was a question whether Elon Musk
was breaking federal law in offering various incentives only to
registered voters, including what was essentially a lottery open
only to registered voters,” he wrote. “He’s up to similar gimmicks
in the upcoming, very expensive Wisconsin Supreme Court race.”
What is Musk's involvement in the race?
According to a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice, America PAC
and Building for America’s Future, two groups that Musk funds, have
spent more than $20 million trying to help elect conservative
Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, whom Trump endorsed last week.
Schimel is facing Democratic-backed Dane County Circuit Judge Susan
Crawford in the race that will determine the ideological makeup of
the state’s highest court. Liberals currently have a 4-3 majority.
Musk also has given the Wisconsin Republican Party $3 million, which
can be passed along to Schimel's campaign.
That outside cash has made the race the most expensive judicial
election in U.S. history, by far. More than $81 million has been
spent to date, obliterating the $51 million record set just two
years ago, when another seat on the same court was up for grabs.
The election will determine control of the court, but has also
become a referendum on Trump’s first weeks in office — as well as
one on Musk himself.
During a telephone town hall for Schimel Thursday night, Trump
implored his voters to turn out in the off-year election.
“It’s a very important race,” he said. “I know you feel it’s local,
but it’s not. It’s really much more than local. The whole country is
watching.”
Musk got involved in the race just days after his electric car
company, Tesla, filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin in an effort to
open dealerships in the state, which could eventually end up before
the justices.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is also expected to soon rule on a
number of prominent national issues, including abortion rights,
congressional redistricting and voting rules, which could affect the
2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.
Jay Heck, the executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, a good
government group, said that regardless of the outcome, Musk's
efforts were “unprecedented” in the state.
“It's obscene and unprecedented. He's already put in close to $20
million," he said. “This election for a Supreme Court open seat in
Wisconsin is going to cost, when it's all said and done, somewhere
between $80 and $100 million dollars. And this is to influence less
than four million eligible voters, of which only 25-30% will turn
out because this is a spring, low-turnout election."
___
Colvin reported from New York.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
